M.A.A. Khan, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.3.99 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, convicted and sentenced the appellant to 5 years R.l. and Rs. 500/- as fine U/s. 306 IPC and to 2 years R.l. and Rs. 300/- as fine under Section 498-A IPC in Sessions Case No. 91/98 State v. Ramesh .
(2.) The relevant facts are these : On July 16, 1998 at about 7.30 a.m. RW. 15 Girdhari Lal, Station House Officer (SHO) Police Station Kotwali Sikar received a telephonic message at the said police station that a woman had committed suicide at Santosh Sadan, Ward No. 16, Sikar. The SHO alongwith his staff and photographer reached the reported place and got the room of the house, wherein the woman had committed suicide, broken. Smt. Meena deceased (32) was noticed to have committed suicide by hanging herself with a rope tied in the ceiling fan. S/he was the wife of Ramesh appellant. Appellant's father RW. 6 Banwari Lal submitted a written report Ex.R 20 for the SHO regarding the unfortunate incident. In his report Banwari had stated that for the last two months his son, Ramesh appellant and his wife Smt. Meena deceased alongwith their two children, were living separately from the rest of the family in the northern portion of the house; that at about 7.00 a.m. when he was leaving for his school, the appellant informed him that the deceased had confined herself in the room and was not opening the door; that on this information he went to the said room; that on peeping through the windows he noticed the deceased hanging by a rope. Girdhari Lal SHO forwarded this report to the police station for registering a case under Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code FIR No. 33/98 under Section 174 Cr.RC. was registered and the SHO commenced enquiry into the causes of the death of the deceased. On July 17, 1998 RW. 7 Chuttan Lal, the father of Smt. Meena deceased, presented a report Ex.R 4 to the Superintendent Police, Sikar. In his said report Chuttan Lal alleged that after her marriage with the appellant on 24.11.86 at Jaipur, the deceased passed a peaceful married life for 4-5 years only; that thereafter the appellant became a liquor addict and started treating Smt. Meena with physical cruelty; that on being fed up with appellant's violent behaviour his father got him transferred to Laxmangarh' (Sikar) but during his stay there even, the appellant continued to treat the deceased with cruelty; that about 5-6 years back the deceased alongwith his children came to reside with her father at Jaipur; that after giving her some training the informant got the deceased settled in a Beauty Parlour Shop which she ran for about two years; that about two years back the appellant and his father approached the informant and on their much insistence and assurance that the deceased would henceforth be treated properly and with dignity, sent her and her children with them; that again the appellant started physically assaulting the deceased and snatch away all her belongings and earnings also which she used to earn by working as a teacher in a private school; that on 15.7.98 at about 6.45 a.m. when the deceased was on her way to her school, Vidya Bharti, in a taxi, the appellant intercepted the vehicle, dragged the deceased out of the vehicle, beat her and let her go only after he had extorted Rs. 100/-from her; that on her return to the house in the evening the appellant again picked up quarrel with her whereupon the deceased confined herself in her room and ended her life by hanging herself to death. On the basis of the FIR lodged by RW. 7 Chuttan Lal Mathur Crime No. 335/98 under Section 498-A and 306 IPC was registered at the Police Station Kotwali, Sikar. After investigation of the case the police submitted a report for offences under Section 498-A and 306 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, on trial of the appellant on the charges for the aforesaid offence, held him guilty of both the offences and convicted and sentenced him in the manner stated above.
(3.) Mr. A.K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the learned trial Judge did not appreciate the evidence on the record of the case in right perspective and erred on facts and in law in holding the appellant guilty of the offences under Section 498-A and 306 IPC. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution witnesses, who supported the prosecution case against the appellant, were highly interested witnesses and were unreliable and their testimony deserved to have been rejected by the trial court. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that occasional and unintended skirmishes and even exchange of hot words between a spouse are the normal features of married life and such a behaviour, if at ali, on the part of the appellant would not fall within the purview of the definition of the term 'abetment'. In support of his arguments the learned counsel relied upon the cases of Swamy Prahlad Das v. State of M.P & Anr. (1995 SCC (Cr.) 943 , Mahender Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P (1996 Cr.LJ 894) , Jainul Haque v. State of Bihar (AIR 1974 SC 45) and Tangappamdian v. State through Dy. Superintendent of Police (1998 Cr.LJ 993) . After considering the arguments of Mr. Gupta in the light of the evidence brought by the prosecution on the record of the learned trial Judge in this case, I fail to agree with him.;